| Irenaeus (III, 12.12) | Tertullian |
|---|---|
| …haec sola legitima esse dicunt, quae ipsi minoraverunt. | …Nacti enim scripturae textum ita in legendo decucurrerunt… (IV.38.7) |
| …they say that these alone are legitimate, which they themselves have reduced. | …for, having seized on the text of Scripture, they have rushed along in reading it like this… |
| Passage Unit (IV..) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.38.1–4 | John’s baptism continuity; Christ assumes validity of John | Internal refutation from accepted Gospel material; salvation-history continuity (prophet → Christ) | Strong signal of inherited anti-Marcion schema moving sequentially through Luke |
| IV.38.5–9 | “Render unto Caesar” — anthropology and image language | Creator-identity via creation anthropology (image/similitude); narrative logic rather than external authority | Highly Irenaean logic: identity through creation ontology rather than rhetorical polemic |
| IV.38.10–18 | Sadducees and resurrection debate | Structured logical parsing; question–answer hermeneutic rule (“response must match question”) | Looks like inherited exegetical principle; grammatical correction typical of anti-heretical dossiers |
| IV.38.19–24 | Correction of Marcionite mispunctuation / segmentation (“illius aevi”) | Grammatical exegesis used to defeat theological dualism | Strong indicator of editorial or prior exegetical tradition focused on textual reading practices |
| IV.38.25–32 | Resurrection logic → continuity with Creator judgment | Enumeration logic; doctrinal deduction from narrative structure | Method closely parallels Irenaeus AH III procedural strategy |
| IV.38.33–end | Davidic sonship / prophetic continuity | Recognition hermeneutic; prophetic fulfillment showing identity of divine economy | Fits sequential anti-Marcion commentary model rather than independent Tertullianic invention |
Tertullian (Adv. Marc. IV.38): “Reddite quae Caesaris Caesari, et quae sunt dei deo… Hominem igitur reddi iubet creatori… Quos autem dignatus est deus illius aevi possessione et resurrectione…” — Irenaeus (AH III.12.12; IV.5.2; V.13.1 etc.): “unum et eundem Deum… qui imaginem et similitudinem plasmavit… resurrectionem carnis confirmans… ex ipsis Scripturis quas retinent convincimus eos.”
Methodological parallels
The chapter operates precisely within the programmatic frame announced by Irenaeus (AH III): refutation of Marcion “ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur.” Tertullian repeatedly argues from material Marcion accepts — Lukan sayings (tribute to Caesar, Sadducean question on resurrection, Davidic Christology) — using internal critique rather than external authority. This mirrors Irenaeus’ habitual procedure: employ dominical logia preserved even by heretics to demonstrate continuity between Creator and Christ (cf. AH III.11; IV.6). The appeal to Genesis (“imago et similitudo”) as the interpretive key for reddite quae dei deo reflects the same exegetical logic by which Irenaeus reads New Testament dominical sayings as confirming creation theology (AH IV.20; V.6). The resurrection discussion likewise parallels Irenaeus’ polemic against groups denying bodily resurrection (AH V.2–13), especially the insistence that Christ’s words to the Sadducees defend the Creator’s economy rather than introduce a new god.
Structural correspondences
The sequence reproduces a recognizably Irenaean argumentative flow: (1) Christ’s actions interpreted as continuous with the Creator; (2) clarification of divine identity through scriptural exegesis; (3) sequential commentary on Gospel pericopes. Tertullian moves from John’s baptism → Caesar saying → Sadducean resurrection debate → Davidic lordship, creating a chain of exegetical demonstrations rather than thematic rhetoric. This structure resembles Irenaeus’ habit of constructing theological proof by successive scriptural units (AH III.16–18; IV.7–9), where each dominical saying becomes a node in a cumulative argument for monotheistic continuity. The emphasis on grammatical reading (“sic legi oporteat… distinctione post deum”) echoes Irenaeus’ frequent insistence on correct textual parsing against heretical misreading (AH II.10; III.7).
Historical polemic parallels
Both authors portray Marcionite exegesis as a posterior distortion achieved through selective reading. Tertullian’s insistence that Christ speaks within the Creator’s scriptural framework mirrors Irenaeus’ repeated claim that heretics mutilate texts yet inadvertently preserve enough to refute themselves (AH III.12; III.14). The appeal to resurrection and Davidic lineage as markers of orthodoxy aligns with Irenaeus’ rule-of-faith strategy, in which apostolic tradition and prophetic continuity establish Christ’s identity against innovators (AH III.3; IV.33). The rhetorical scenario (“existeret aliqui Marcion adversus Marcionem…”) resembles Irenaeus’ frequent hypothetical dialogues exposing the internal contradictions of opponents.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding
Several features suggest prior exegetical material rather than purely Tertullianic construction. The pericope-by-pericope analysis reads like scholia attached to Gospel passages, particularly the detailed syntactical argument about Luke’s wording in the Sadducean dialogue. The interpretive method — deriving theological conclusions from dominical sayings linked to OT motifs (image of God, resurrection, Davidic sonship) — matches the dominical-logia framework hypothesized for an earlier anti-Marcionite commentary. The sustained focus on resolving Marcionite mispunctuation or misdivision of phrases parallels Irenaeus’ textual corrective style and suggests inherited exegetical notes subsequently reworked into Tertullian’s polemical Latin.
Condensed assessment
Adv. Marc. IV.38 strongly supports dependence upon an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: the method of refuting Marcion from his own Gospel, the structured sequence of dominical exegesis, the Creator-Christ continuity argument, and the grammatical-textual corrections all align closely with patterns characteristic of Irenaeus’ announced but lost anti-Marcionite treatise.
